On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
*Fundraising "operating principles"*
I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical
"operating principles" for fundraising that would give some real-world
guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees member Phoebe
has done an excellent job of summarising the fundraising conversations on
this list from the last few weeks here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_principles
I would like the Board to ask the Fundraising team (once this fundraiser is
finished) to develop these operating principles in a collaborative process
with interested community members. This is in the hope that in the future,
the community can help spread the word and feel empowered to join
the fundraising campaign for our movement, rather than simply hoping it
will go away as quickly as possible.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:12 AM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
In my opinion, the fundraising principles are simply too weak. They seem
to have been designed with maximum flexibility, which for guiding
principles would typically be fine, but the fundraising team needs much
stricter boundaries. Harder rules, backed by a Wikimedia Foundation Board
of Trustees resolution, are required. Repeated and repeated misbehavior on
the fundraising team's part makes it clear that the current guidelines
aren't enough. New rules would specifically address, for example, how
big and obnoxious in-page donation advertising can be, with hard maximums.
The fundraising rules also need to make explicit that lying is flatly
unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest
solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
The fundraising teams, past and present, regularly lie to our readers in
an effort to extract donations. Specific examples of lying include calling
Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director", calling Brandon Harris a
"Wikipedia programmer", and repeatedly making manipulative and misleading
suggestions that continued donations keep the projects online.
The Wikimedia Foundation recently raised $20 million. Assuming a generous
$3 million to keep the projects online per year, that's over six _years_
that the projects could continue operating before needing to ask for money
again. Contrast with e-mails and in-site donation advertising that
suggest that the lights will go off soon if readers don't donate today.
MZMcBride
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:21 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 December 2014 at 00:12, MZMcBride
<z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
The fundraising rules also need to make explicit
that lying is flatly
unacceptable. Having the first rule be "don't lie" might be the easiest
solution here, though it's shocking that this needs to be written down.
+1
And we're not talking about semantic arguments, we're seeing blatant
falsehoods.
- d.
I share these sentiments, but hasn't it become abundantly clear to you by
now that your appeals are falling on deaf ears? Wake up and smell the
coffee.
In these discussions we have had over the past couple of weeks, I have seen
absolutely no indication to disconfirm the hypothesis that the fundraising
team is doing *exactly* what the Wikimedia board and management wants it to
do, and that they will do *exactly the same thing next year, however much
you object now. *They will weather the storm, and rely on it that everybody
will have forgotten by December 2015.
Unless you are masochists, and thrive on being ignored, I suggest you take
your complaints to journalists and the public, including those currently
suckered into donating under false pretences – because the only way you'll
change this pattern of manipulative campaigning is by making the monetary
cost greater than the monetary benefit.
Social media is that-a-way.